tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN September 28, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PDT
trained lawyer who handles claims like this on a daily basis to handle it in a thoughtful, appropriate way, to elicit facts and information from dr. ford. i thought ms. mitchell did a good job. but to somehow wrap themselves in the normal compassion we would somehow -- that we do feel for somebody in dr. ford's situation and claim that we have -- are not treating her well by pointing out the overtpoliticalization of this process is simply trying to take our eye off the ball. there has been a calculated effort to manipulate this process in a way that is blatantly unfair to dr. ford and
to judge kavanaugh. and that's shameful. i said yesterday i think this is one of the darkest days for the united states senate since the mccarthy hearings that occurred back in the '50s. you may recall the comments of one of the lawyers who said i never really gauged your cruelty or recklessness before today. and asked senator mccarthy, have you no sense of decency? i think this process has been cruel and reckless and indecent for both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. and it did not have to be that way. when we learned yesterday from dr. ford that she did not authorize the release of the
letter of july 30 that she sent to senator feinstein, she did not authorize it, she did not want it leaked. but it was leaked. and she said the only people that had possession of it were her lawyers, senator feinstein, and representative eschoo. you can reach your own conclusion, but the letter had to come from somewhere. and when she testified that she was not informed of chairman grassley's offer to travel where she was, to interview her with bipartisan participation about her claims, she said she didn't -- it wasn't clear to her that offer had ever been made. so when the letter was leaked by somebody, when the offer to
interview her before a bipartisan panel of investigators at a place and time of her choosing out of the public eye, when that was not communicated, it sure looks to me, at least the circumstantial evidence would seem to point, to the desire to have exactly what we had yesterday. and to contribute to what has only been, what has been described as accurately as a circus atmosphere. cruel, reckless, no sense of decency. i would point to the fact that judge kavanaugh said as long as this nomination has been pending, you have seen a trend toward more and more scurrilous, salacious, and uncorroborated allegations being made against
him. all of which the chairman and the committee professional staff have attempted to investigate. we heard from dr. ford. we also saw a claim by a ms. ramirez that was uncorroborated by the dozens of witnesses that allegedly existed. but "the new york times" could not confirm, nobody would confirm her allegation. and then yesterday, the ranking member quoted from some of the claim claims -- a ms. swetnick, represented by mr. avenatti, and i was struck by the fact that
some of the allegations made in the statement by ms. swetnick that we got on september 25th, 2018, accused mark judge and brett kavanaugh to gang rape high school girls at a time when ms. swetnick was in college and says she went back to parties in high school where girls were gang raped. not on one occasion, not on two occasions. she said she went to ten such parties. i'm shocked that our colleagues would embrace this kind of uncorroborated, outrageous, salacious allegation considering the facts and the timing and the
representation by stormy daniels' lawyer. obviously, eager for more public attention and notoriety. but you didn't hear that in the quote from the ranking member yesterday when she quoted from some of the allegations made by ms. swetnick. our friend the ranking member said yesterday that the integrity of the senate is on trial. i agree with that. and we're failing badly. cruelty. recklessness, indecency. toward the people we should be treating with respect and dignity.
that extends to mark judge. isn't it obvious what is happening here with mark judge? he has submitted a statement under penalty of felony saying that brett kavanaugh and i were friends in high school. but we have not spoken for several years. i do not recall the events described by dr. ford in her testimony before the united states senate judiciary committee today. he submitted that statement yesterday. he said i never saw brett act in the manner dr. ford describes. i am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony. so he says he has nothing more to offer. he's submitted his statement under penalty of felony. but here's the other part. he admits to being a recovering alcoholic. as well as a cancer survivor.
he said he struggles with depression and anxiety, so much that he avoids public speaking. and our colleagues across the aisle believe that the appropriate course of conduct is to drag mr. judge into this circus-like atmosphere and to subject his battle with alcoholism and addiction to public investigation and scrutiny and ridicule. that is cruel. that is reckless. that is indecent. so mr. chairman, in conclusion, i believe this is a calculated effort to delay the vote. i think the evidence all points to that. and the longer we go without
voting, it's clear to me that people like mr. avenatti and others eager to get attention and willing to peddle the most salacious, uncorroborated, outrageous allegations against this nominee that we'll continue to see more of the same. it's well known that about 150 nominations are pending on the senate calendar. if there's been one thing that's been the hallmark of our colleagues' conduct across the aisle during the time of the trump administration, it's to obstruct, delay, and deny this administration the benefit of the nominees which they have sent to the senate for advice and consent. that includes not only judges but all aspects of the federal government. 150 nominations pending on the senate calendar because even
with uncontroversial nominees, they want to obstruct, delay, and deny this administration the benefit of the people they have chosen to help govern. so it strikes me as entirely consistent with what we have seen on this nomination. and i think it's disgraceful, as senator hatch said yesterday. i think the way dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have been treated is a scandal. and it is cruel, reckless, and indecent. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. i'll be fairly brief. because i announced my intention to vote against kavanaugh already. judge kavanaugh has an
unpleasant record, both of associations with and rulings for a powerful array of activist republican special interests. to whom he gives a 90% win rate. the supreme court has an equally unpleasant record of 5-4 partisan rulings for those same big interests. not three or four times. not even one or two dozen times. but under chief justice roberts, 70 times. all 5-4 partisan decisions. the court is flying all the
warning flags of a captured agency. dancing to special interest tunes, and rampaging through precedent and principle to get there. this will be a disaster for the court, and i believe cavanaugh will contribute to that disaster. his partisan screed yesterday was telling. as to yesterday, let me be frank. i believe dr. ford. i may be wrong, but i believed her. and i believe kavanaugh dodged and dissembled, ranted and raved, filibustered and prevarica prevaricated. i did not find him credible.
i don't believe boof is flaj lns, i don't believe a devil's triangle is a drinking game, and i don't believe calling yourself a girl's alumnius is being her friend. and i think drinking until you ralph or fall out of the bus or don't remember the game or need to piece together your memory the next day is more consistent with dr. ford's and others' testimony than his own. if dr. ford's testimony is true, i hope we can all agree kavanaugh has no business on the court. and i, for one, believed her. but set aside my own belief.
as a prosecutor, i am horrified at what the committee has done. terminating the fbi background investigation before these new allegations were even considered. doing partisan interviews bipartisan stafferers, declaredly determined to force the nominee through. letting kavanaugh's alleged accomplice in the assault, the guy in the room with him when it happened, get away with a lawyer's letter and no testimony, no cross-examination. the lawyers in the room will
know the reverence with which wigmore is cited as league authority in decisions across the country and for decades. beyond any doubt, he wrote, the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth is cross-examination. mark judge is in hiding instead of under subpoena. and that greatest legal engine has been deliberately disabled in this matter. let me have one example of where investigation might help. here's kavanaugh's calendar.
dr. ford said that kavanaugh and judge and p.j. and at least one other boy were all at a house. well, we know brett kavanaugh was there because it's his schedule. and here's judge, and here's p.j. here are all those three named boys and others at a house together just as she said. she said kavanaugh and judge were drunk. and that she had a beer. skis is brewskies, beers. they were drinking, just as she
said. now, i will concede that the two girls aren't mentioned. but spot me this. if you had just sexually assaulted one of the two girls, would you add the girls' names to your calendar? i doubt it. this may, may be powerful corroborating evidence that the assault happened. that it happened that day. and that it happened in that place. but with no fbi investigation, we can't tell. that's how you get out of lindsey's batter's box. you investigate. it's the least thing a sexual
assault victim is entitled to when she comes forward. the fbi could interview all the attendees, not just to obtain simple denials but to cross check and see if the stories add up. the fbi could see if the house matches the locality and description dr. ford gave. the fbi could inquire after and pursue other corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's what they do. anybody who has done any serious investigation knows you don't stop just with witness statements of interested parties. you run down corroborating and
impeaching evidence. you check and cross check. you ask and go back again. you do the basic blocking and tackling of investigation. partisan interviews by political staff predetermined to clear the nominee just aren't the same as real investigators doing real investigation and corroboration. i don't think this has ever happened before in the history of background investigations. closing out the background investigation without investigating new credible allegations. you cannot tell me ms. ford's
allegations weren't credible. they were credible enough to get her before the senate. and yet she was not given the most basic decent thing that a witness or victim could be given after they come forward. sincere or thorough investigation. closing out the background investigation without investigating new credible allegations, not any of three allegations, all from women demonstrably in kavanaugh's social circle. look at this ridiculous letter. from the other alleged assailant in the room. and it's equally ridiculous
yesterday's fig leaf, i guess you would call it, where the same statement is repeated just this time with his signature on it. and ask yourself, do you think investigator kavanaugh would have tolerated letters like this from the third person in the room? had there been one with mr. clinton and ms. lewinsky? never in a million years. and yet this is what we're supposed to satisfy ourselves with in this matter. it is preposterous to anyone who has ever done serious investigation. yet this is what we are left with. we have done a botch of an investigation.
over time, i expect the facts to come out. they have a way of doing that. cover-ups never last. the sand is running through kavanaugh's hourglass. and i pledge whatever i can do to make sure that the truth of his conduct is ultimately determined. setting aside this botch, we go back to a supreme court far too often dancing to the tune of a handful of big republican special interests. big republican special interests funding the federalist society that is now picking supreme court nominees. big republican special interests using the unlimited dark money power the supreme court gave them to mount tv ad campaigns for supreme court nominees.
big republican special interests funding frequent flyer friends of the court, offering constant instruction and encouragement to the five republicans on the supreme court. and big republican special interests on the winning side of those 70 5-4 partisan victories. the fruits of their political labor. people are catching on. the record of this is undeniable. and as i said, it will be a disaster for the court. i yield my time. >> i think i should try to clarify about the calendar that senator whitehouse put up there.
the entry has six boys listed for july 1st, 1982. it says go to timmy's house for skis with judge, tom, p.j., bernie, and squi. dr. ford said there were four boys there, the calendar entry lists six plus kavanaugh. that's seven. that's the wrong gathering. two allegations made by my colleague are incorrect. the first, i never terminated an fbi investigation. i didn't have any authority to open or close an fbi investigation. the fbi considers this matter closed. if my colleagues were worried about the partisanship of the investigation, the democrats could have joined us at every step of the way. however, we all know they declined to participate. second, we did receive a letter
signed by mark judge himself under penalty of felony. i read it previously this morning. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's been a lot of talk about the need for an fbi investigation. there are many of us who wish that that's where this would have begun. as it should have begun. as it could have begun had these letters been handed over to the fbi. with the request they be investigated at an earlier time. as early as late july or early august. and let's talk for a minute about what would have happened had that occurred. they would have gone to dr. ford, they would have interviewed her, and they would have prepared a report outlining dr. ford's allegations. if that report would have
reflected more or less what we heard yesterday, probably a more distilled version of that, similar to what we saw in her written statements before she appeared before this committee. they would have gone to judge kavanaugh, they would have interviewed judge kavanaugh, and jublg cavanaukavanaugh would ha us then as he told us yesterday that no such event ever occurred. he never did this to any woman, not in high school, not in college, not before, not after. they would have gone to the other alleged eyewitnesses to this event. including mark judge, patrick smyth, and leland keyser. they would have taken statements from each of them. and those statements would have indicated, as they have each indicated in written statements submitted to this committee that they recall no such event ever occurring. and so we have investigated.
i too wish it had been investigated by the fbi, and had it been investigated by the fbi at the outset as it could have been, as it should have been, as it would have been when these letters were received, then this could have been handled in a much more dignified manner, in a manner much more respectful to dr. ford, in a manner much more respectful to judge kavanaugh, and respectful to both of their families and indeed this entire process. now, some have mentioned today that there was some emotion in the room yesterday. yes, certainly. these are emotional circumstances. my heart goes out to both dr. ford and her family and judge kavanaugh and his family. they have both been through a lot. i don't blame either one of them for demonstrating some emotion. not for a moment. in the case of dr. ford, clearly, she's been through something awful. in the case of judge kavanaugh, he in recent days has seen in
addition to this allegation dragging his name into the public record, he's seen his name dragged through the mud on a lot of other things, including an allegation that he was involved in and in effect running a drug distribution and gang rape ring. ask yourself the question, if you or someone you love was alleged to have been involved in running something like that, might not you feel a little bit emotional as well? and might not that spill out into your testimony if you were called in front of this committee? look, we have a job to do here today. our job yesterday was to hear from dr. ford and to hear from judge kavanaugh. we have done that. our job now is to vote.
today, we're going to do that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i said at the first day of the first hearing regarding judge kavanaugh that this is not normal. it might look normal. you have the nominee. you have the family behind them. you have all the cameras on. but it wasn't normal. it wasn't normal because this nominee was hand-picked by a president who in just the last week has gone after his attorney general, threatened to fire the deputy attorney general who's overseeing a major investigation, a national security investigation, hand-picked by a president who's constantly undermining law enforcement, constantly undermining the fbi. and yet this president picked a nominee who has the most expansive view of executive power that we have seen.
a president, a view of executive power that, according to his writings and even the case law, says in his own words in an opinion, that a president should be able to declare laws unconstitutional. in his own views in legal writings that a president should be able to be immune from investigation while sitting in office. that we shouldn't have a special counsel statute. so that's where we start. that's the core here. as we look at the constitutional issues that we're facing. the second reason this isn't normal is that we did not get the information we needed to make a decision. i come from a state that believes in process. in my old job for eight years, i headed up the attorney's office. we handled, by the way, 12,000 juvenile cases every year, so i
saw cases just like the one we heard about yesterday. but in our role, i would always tell people, if we had to let a case go, if we had to make a deal that people didn't like, our role was to be ministers of justice. it was to convict the guilty but also protecting the innocent. and i don't think we protected the innocent very well yesterday. and i certainly don't think that we're doing it today. there was a lot of chest beating that went on yesterday. on the other side. and it was pretty effective, i guess, if the goal was to distract the american public from what they had heard in the morning, to distract and deflect from the moving, powerful testimony we heard. and i don't want to hear about respecting dr. ford when we are not giving her the respect of having an investigation of the case that she made to us
yesterday. it was a while ago that this happened. and there's other claims out there as well. but it's been my experience as senator whitehouse just articulated that if you don't go back and look at things and you don't look at corroborating evidence, and you don't talk to the witnesses, you're never going to know what happened. i have proposed and talked to some of my colleagues, and i know others have as well, there's a finite period for an fbi investigation. maybe a week. george h.w. bush ordered that in the anita hill case. a three-day investigation. that happened. whether people like that outcome or not, it happened. that is not even happening here. we are not even giving dr. ford the respect of having that investigation. and that is wrong. that is not being ministers of justice. this was a woman with no
political background who made an attempt to call the front office of her congresswoman. that's what she did. she did this before the nominee was even picked. she did it when the nominee was on a short list. because she was concerned. that's what she did. so don't argue that she is part of some massive political strategy. those aren't the facts. and yes, it's messy. the justice system is messy. things come in at the last minute. it happens all the time. it happens before a trial. it happens before a hearing. and the question is not if it's messy. senator flake himself said yesterday, this is not a good process, but it's all we've got. the question is, what do you do when it happens? when you're in a position of power, what do you do when it
happens? you may not like how this came in at the last minute. i would have liked to have known about it earlier, too, but i didn't. the question is, what do you do when it happens? and when it happens, you don't just put it under the rug. for so many years, this is what happened to claims like this. they were just swept under the rug. what happened in the house, no matter how bad it was, didn't belong in the courthouse. and that hurt women, and that hurt children for a long, long time. but the times are changing now. we have someone who made a credible claim. the chairman even thanked her for her bravery. where is the bravery in this room? this rush, when in fact, we could have a finite period of time to interview a finite period of witnesses. someone who she alleges was in the very room where it happened.
we are not able to even cross-examine them, ask them questions. we're not allowing the fbi to go in there and tell them to his face that you're going to get in criminal trouble if you don't answer these questions correctly. instead, we get a letter behind the veil of a law firm. that's not the same thing. we have a polygraph expert. yesterday, i put that polygraph exam on the record. people were bristling over there and said we want to see the charts. we would be happy to have the polygraph expert testify and explain how this was verified. and yes, as judge kavanaugh pointed out, this is not a test that is admissible in court, but guess what. we use it for job interviews. we use it for the fbi. we use it for the defense department. we use it for the cia, and the nominee himself has even said that this is useful to use for those purposes in a case that he decided in 2016. those are the kind of witnesses
we could hear from if we had the opportunity. maybe one week to do it. so i look at it this way. if we want to show dr. ford respect, we give her the respect of having her case heard and the evidence looked at. i look at it as what are you hiding? what would it hurt? if judge kavanaugh is so sure that he has this corroborating evidence and what this calendar means and what these things mean, then what is he afraid of if we just spend one week looking at the evidence? what i have heard today just adds to this. when i heard the sanctimonious talk about some kind of political strategy, well, i'll give you exhibit a, merrick garland. who was delayed for nearly ten months. you talk about a nominee getting off the floor when all we're asking for is one week for an
investigation. and you kept merrick garland away from this committee for ten months. that's not even a comparison. that was a strategy yesterday. and boy, was it a strategy. and i sure hope that some of the senators who have not yet made a decision, who are not on this committee, will look at the evidence and look at what happened and see it for the strategy that it was. i asked dr. ford yesterday about what she remembers from that night. and i also asked her what she couldn't forget. and here's what she said. the stairwell, the living room, the bedroom, the bed on the right side of the room, the bathroom in close proximity, the laughter. the uproarious laughter. the multiple attempts to escape and the final ability to do so. we heard her talk about how she
had a civic duty to bring this up. we heard her testify about how she had actually brought this up six years before to a counselor. about how her husband recalls her using the judge's name. in the rules of evidence, it says that statements made to a professional, to a medical professional, are considered to be credible. in cases when you compare evidence, you look at people's what their goals are. what would be their reasons to lie. and i look at, you have on one hand a judge who is a career making moment to get on the united states supreme court. and by the way, no one is entitled to be on the united states supreme court. and then you have a woman who tried to keep this confidential, who came forward, sent a letter, tried to do what she could to keep her name out of the news. and finally, when the reporters
showed up at her door, she came forward. i just see these as different. when you look at the rules of evidence, when you look at credibility, the fact that she had mentioned this years before means a lot. but you could have doubters. i understand that. but when we don't have an investigation, and we don't have things in writing to be able to look at the facts, where are we? i have been on this committee for a number of years. and i have been briefed on fbi background checks. and a number of times, and my colleagues know this, nominees withdraw because of what is in those background checks. they pull their names out. the press never knows it. but it happens. or sometimes we're presented with some information that's not public, and we have to make a decision, well, does this drug use amount to something that should keep this person off the bench? does looking at this website amount to keeping this person off the bench? these are things we have
actually considered. that's the kind of information we get from those background checks and i think it's a good thing because not everyone needs to be dragged through the mud. things are contained in a background check. >> may we have order? >> those background checks are useful for us, and they're useful for the american people. i for one don't want to live in an evidence-free zone. we need this information. i would submit to my friends across the aisle, this is not a he said/she said. this is a he said/they said. there are a number of people out there who have talked about the fact, including the nominee's roommate, that he is belligerent when he gets drunk. yes, that was a long time ago. maybe he doesn't do that anymore. and i know people in high school
drink a lot and in college, but when i asked him about this, to try to get to the facts, i'm not an fbi agent, but all i was trying to do is figure out, well, maybe he has partial memory loss when he gets that drunk, or maybe he blacks out. i don't know. i was trying to get that. what did i get in response? a question if i black out. did he apologize? he did. and i appreciated that, but the point is, if we could have the fbi, like we do with all background checks, interview all these witnesses, we could get to the bottom of the facts. judge kavanaugh said on fox news and yesterday that he wants a fair process. that's what he said he wants. and when i asked the judge why he wouldn't ask the president to have the fbi reopen the investigation yesterday, he didn't make that request. he didn't really answer that question.
there are only a few people in america right now that can reopen that investigation. the one sitting across the room, because yes, senator grassley could have held off this vote until we had that investigation. judge kavanaugh could have easily said, mr. president, for this to move forward, i want to at least clear my name, but mostly, i want to have the american people know whether or not this is true or not. he could have done that. why didn't he do it? because they're afraid of what they'll find out. yesterday, the american bar association, as senator durbin has just noted and read the letter, sent a letter urging the committee not to vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until the fbi has conducted appropriate follow-up. the aba said that it made that request because of its, quote, respect for the rule of law and due process under law.
just waiting until the staff is done talking over there. >> the aba said it made the request because of its respect for the rule of law and due process under the law. i chose to get on this committee, i didn't get on it right away because i had done this work for eight years before i got on here. i got on here two years after i got to the senate because i decided i wanted to continue that work, to uphold the respect for the rule of law and due process under the law. but that's not what i saw yesterday. so if this committee isn't going to respect the law and if we go to the floor and the same thing happens again, i would remind my colleagues that the constitution does not say we the ruling party. it constitution says we the
people. and if the people of this country want to have a check and balance in the supreme court, a check and balance on this administration, if they want to have a fair process, they're the only ones left to pitch in here. they're the only ones left to have a say. because right now, the way this process is run, we're not running it like we the people. it's being run like we the ruling party. i vote no. >> senator cruz. we hear about fair and open and thorough and everything that i just heard. we heard inference of a political strategy on this side of the aisle, not to be fair and thorough. i have seared in the back of my mind something that was said soon after july 9th that senator schumer said that tells me about a political strategy that has
carried on here the way it has to delay and delay and delay and delay because he said i'm going to fight judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything i've got. and it seems like that has happened over the last 90 days. senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're living in a divided time. this country is divided right down the middle. there is an enormous amount of anger. there's rage. there's hatred. we see demonstrators screaming at each other. reflecting that rage, reflecting that anger. and i know there are a great many americans who wish we could and believe we can get back to an environment where we treat each other with civility and
decency. get back to an environment where, yes, we have policy disagreements. we disagree on what the right legislation is to pass, and we even have vigorous debates about what the right policy is. but we do so in a context that respects each other. that doesn't demean the humanity of each other. that doesn't attack the character and drag people through the mud. the politics of personal destruction that we have seen on display in recent days is washington, d.c. at its very ugliest. and all of us should remember that we're talking about real human beings here. these aren't pawns in a chess board. these are real people. dr. ford has been through hell. the last two weeks, i have no
doubt, have been extraordinarily painful for her, for her family. the testimony she gave yesterday was powerful. it was clearly heart wrenching, it was clear she was hurting and hurting mightily. having her name made public against her wishes and dragged through the mud was a hurtful thing to do. the wrong thing to do. and judge kavanaugh, he, too, has been dragged through the mud for the last two weeks in a way that has no precedent. in our polarized society we live in today, it's almost tribalized. where half of us wear one team's jersey, the other half wear the other team's jersey, and everything we see we see through
the lens of our jersey. so it would not surprise me if across the country a significant percentage of those on the democratic side of the aisle saw yesterday's testimony and concluded he must be guilty. and it would not surprise me if a very significant percentage of those on the republican side of the aisle saw yesterday's testimony, the same testimony, and concluded he must be innoce innocent. one of the consequences of that, you know, judge kavanaugh talked about how these smears and the many that have been leveled against him in the last two weeks, how they have, as he put it, destroyed his family. to some, that may sound like hyperbole. i don't think it is. judge kavanaugh has two young daughters. a 10-year-old and a 13-year-old.
for the rest of their lives, their daughters will go to school, will interact with people, many of whom are convinced their father is a rapist. i want you to think of the effect it has when those are the allegations. that's where it starts, not i disagree with your jures prudence. not i think you're wrong in how you interpret the constitution, but you are -- and let's be clear, he's been accused of among other things, participating in repeatedly drugging and gang raping women to take some of the more sensational, i think ludicrous claims that have been aired. these little girls are going to have classmates of theirs repeat those charges to them. some of the most poignant testimony yesterday was when judge kavanaugh described how he's taught law at harvard law school for over a decade.
and he said he may never get to teach law again. and that's entirely possible. that's as a sitting justice in our polarized world, i'm a graduate of the harvard law school and i think it is entirely possible those on the left they say we don't want someone we think is a rapist ever teaching again. he talked about how much he has loved coaching girls's basketball. coaching his daughters in basketball. he mentioned he may never coach again. that's a very real possible consequence of the mud slinging and irresponsible behavior of the last two weeks. it may be in this tribalized partisan world that the parents of the other girls say we don't want him as a coach anymore.
our words and actions have consequences. that being said, even though this is a divided time, even though this is a partisan time, i have faith in the american people. i have faith in the american people that we want to be fair-minded. we want to assess the facts and we want to assess what happens. i think it's important that once the allegations game public that dr. ford was given a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. i emphatically urged my colleagues that was the right thing to do to give her the opportunity to testify in public and it was important that she be given an environment that was fair and respectful and she not be demeaned and not be attacked and she wasn't. the committee once this had been forced to the front pages of the
paper, the right thing to do was give her a public forum and a full forum to tell her story. but the right thing also requires judge kavanaugh given a full and fair opportunity to defend himself. the american people watched that testimony. and you come away with a number of conclusions. it is clear their testimony is in direct conflict. what they said is directly conflicting. judge kavanaugh categorically and unequivocally denied the nominations. so the question is, how do you resolve that discrepancy and how does the senate judiciary committee and the senate and resolve the testimony when you have two witnesses dimetrically opposed? the only way i know to do, and this is how a court of law
operates and how most reasonable people operate is when you have conflicting testimony, you look to what does the rest of the evidence demonstrate? what other evidence is there and what does the evidence demonstrate? dr. ford named three fact witnesses who she says were there and could corroborate her story. none of the three corroborates her story. not only did they not corroborate her story, all three of the named fact witnesses explicitly refuted her story and did so under penalty of perjury. they didn't do so lightly. they didn't just say it. they did it in a context that under the united states code they could face up to five years in prison if they lied to this committee. every fact witness that dr. ford named has explicitly disputed
her allegations. now, one of the witnesses was mr. judge. a the love my colleagues said why didn't we hear his testimony? he refused to talk to the committee. he smilted a statement under penalty of perjury, under penalty ever felony, but refused to be interviewed by investigators. it's not complicated to understand why. mr. judge had a very troubled life and he battled with addiction for most of his life. we heard testimony that he had been near death and battled with depression and is a cancer survivor. he has been directly accused of multiple felonies. so when me is investigators
asked to interview him, he said no. that shouldn't surprise anybody. we had a vote earlier today on subpoenaing mr. judge. it's not complicated what would happen if he were subpoenaed. if he came before this committee, any defense lawyer worth assault would tell mr. judge not to testify. i understand politically the democratic members of this senate would very much like to see a man who struggled with addiction most of his life sitting before this committee and pleading the fifth. that would make great theatrics and great political theatrics. it wouldn't help in the search for the truth. but it would make a great public show. i will say of the three fact witnesses, the one who i think is most revealing is leland kaiser. miss kaiser was close friends with dr. ford.
miss kaiser had every incentive to back up her story. instead, miss kaiser under penalty of perjury said she doesn't know judge kavanaugh and has no recollection of any party like the one dr. ford describes. dr. ford said miss kaiser texted her to say i'm sorry for not backing up her story. her incentives were to back up the story, yet she had no incentive and no motive to lie. every incentive to agree with dr. ford's story and yet she did not. all three fact witnesses have explicitly disputed the allegations. what other evidence do we have? judge kavanaugh's calendars. i have to say when the calendars
were first released. i didn't find it terribly persuasive until he walked through day by day, each of the possible days when this was alleged to have happened and walked through how he was out of town for many of the days and how he had conflicts for many of the days and the notion that his calendars were like diaries. i think it's kind of odd and not something many people do, but it's something both he and his father do. that contemporaneous evidence that he kept in 1982, i will tell you in a court of law, that would be powerful. if you are trying to ascertain two confluicting witness, you would look for contemporaneous evidence one way or the other. finally we know judge kavanaugh's impeccable record of decades of public service.
is it he's 53 years old and prior to two weeks ago, there had been no allegations. six background checks and detail and thorough and nobody raised any claim like this. now, all of us know from human experience that if someone is a sexual predator and someone is committing the actions that had been alleged, that it is very rare that they are a one-time offender. if someone is carrying out this conduct, they have a pattern of doing so over and over and over again. we have seen powerful men throughout society in politics and journalism and hollywood whose careers have been ended, but ended for a pattern of harassment and abuse that typically extends decades. when someone behaves like this, they behave like this over and over again.
there is no credible indication that occurred. the major of his law clerks have been women. that is exceptionally unusual. i don't know of another federal appellate judge for whom that is the case and his law clerks revere him. they hold him in the very highest of respect. his reputation, judge kavanaugh's reputation in this town is of being a boy scout. of being a boring boy scout. that has been his reputation for a long time. some might say in the press there have been these other sensational allegations. others have popped up after this one. i thought it was striking in yesterday's hearing that not a single democratic member of this committee chose to ask about the other allegation. that indicates how little
credibility. the one by the client of mr. avenatti makes extraordinary claims that our democratic colleagues are embarrassed to say publicly because they demonstrate this is a partisan circus. this is not about substance. this is about smears. >> can i ask the senator to sum up. the reason is because i'd like to give everybody a chance to speak. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. i will say unfortunately the conduct of our democratic colleagues, it's been clear that this has been all about politics. all about delaying this confirmation until after the